LoginSubscribe Now
Follow Us
Sign up to our free newsletter
Solicitors Journal LogoInforming the legal profession since 1856

Find the knowledge you need from the SJ library of over 20,000 legal articles

Search now
Solicitors Journal Logo
  • Legal News
  • Opinion
  • Features
  • Practice Notes
  • Business
  • International
  • Court Reports
  • AI Search
  • Digital Edition
  • Subscription Options
  • Advertise with Us
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • FAQ
    • Guide to Authors
Solicitors Journal

Informing the legal profession since 1856.

Follow us

Topics

  • Legal News
  • Opinion
  • Features
  • Practice Notes
  • Business
  • International
  • Court Reports

About

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise with Us
  • FAQ
  • Guide to Authors

Subscribe

  • Subscription Options
  • Digital Edition
  • Free Newsletter

Editorial

editorial@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

Subscriptions

subscriptions@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

Advertising

Advertise with usadvertising@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

© 2026 Solicitors Journal in partnership with the International In-house Counsel Journal

ISSN 0038-1047  ·  Images: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors

Terms and ConditionsCookie PolicyPrivacy PolicyPLS Clear logoCopyright & permissions

Legal aid fee dispute resolved in court

18 Mar 2025|Court Report|Add your comment
Share:
Legal aid fee dispute resolved in court

High Court dismisses appeal over legal aid fees in robbery case involving alleged use of a bat

High Court Dismisses Appeal on Legal Aid Fees in Robbery Case

The High Court, presided over by Costs Judge Whalan, dismissed an appeal concerning the classification of legal aid fees under the Advocate's Graduated Fees Scheme (AGFS) in a robbery case. The appellant, Mr Samuel Ponniah, represented Andrew Murphy, who was charged with robbery at Sheffield Crown Court.

The appeal focused on the correct banding of offences under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. Mr Ponniah claimed fees based on Band 11.1, which covers aggravated burglary and armed robbery, while the Legal Aid Agency assessed the case under Band 11.2, which pertains to other robberies.

The case involved an alleged robbery on 22nd January 2023, where Mr Murphy and a co-defendant, Jacqueline Williams, were accused of robbing Stephanie Bennett of £20. The victim claimed that Williams threatened her with a bat, though the bat was not seen.

The court examined the statutory definitions of robbery and armed robbery. Under the Theft Act 1968, robbery involves theft with the use or threat of force. The Serious Crimes Act 2007 further defines armed robbery as involving a firearm or offensive weapon.

Judge Whalan considered previous case law, including R v. Stables and R v. Kendrick, which provided guidance on what constitutes armed robbery. In particular, the court noted that merely implying possession of a weapon does not meet the threshold for armed robbery.

The appellant argued that the implied threat of a bat should elevate the offence to armed robbery. However, Judge Whalan preferred the reasoning in Kendrick, which held that implied threats with non-specified weapons do not qualify as armed robbery.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the presence of a concealed bat, while potentially an aggravating factor, did not meet the statutory or common law definitions of armed robbery. As such, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Legal Aid Agency's original fee assessment.

This decision clarifies the application of the AGFS and the definition of armed robbery, impacting future legal aid claims in similar cases.

Learn More

For more information on legal aid and criminal law, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.

Read the Guide

Related Topics

  • Legal Aid
  • High Court
  • 2025 Cases
  • Criminal Law
  • Robbery

Comments

Latest Articles

High Court Dismisses Appeal on Legal Aid Fees in Robbery Case

The High Court, presided over by Costs Judge Whalan, dismissed an appeal concerning the classification of legal aid fees under the Advocate's Graduated Fees Scheme (AGFS) in a robbery case. The appellant, Mr Samuel Ponniah, represented Andrew Murphy, who was charged with robbery at Sheffield Crown Court.

The appeal focused on the correct banding of offences under the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. Mr Ponniah claimed fees based on Band 11.1, which covers aggravated burglary and armed robbery, while the Legal Aid Agency assessed the case under Band 11.2, which pertains to other robberies.

The case involved an alleged robbery on 22nd January 2023, where Mr Murphy and a co-defendant, Jacqueline Williams, were accused of robbing Stephanie Bennett of £20. The victim claimed that Williams threatened her with a bat, though the bat was not seen.

The court examined the statutory definitions of robbery and armed robbery. Under the Theft Act 1968, robbery involves theft with the use or threat of force. The Serious Crimes Act 2007 further defines armed robbery as involving a firearm or offensive weapon.

Judge Whalan considered previous case law, including R v. Stables and R v. Kendrick, which provided guidance on what constitutes armed robbery. In particular, the court noted that merely implying possession of a weapon does not meet the threshold for armed robbery.

The appellant argued that the implied threat of a bat should elevate the offence to armed robbery. However, Judge Whalan preferred the reasoning in Kendrick, which held that implied threats with non-specified weapons do not qualify as armed robbery.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the presence of a concealed bat, while potentially an aggravating factor, did not meet the statutory or common law definitions of armed robbery. As such, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Legal Aid Agency's original fee assessment.

This decision clarifies the application of the AGFS and the definition of armed robbery, impacting future legal aid claims in similar cases.

Learn More

For more information on legal aid and criminal law, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.

Read the Guide

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|PLS LogoCopyright & permissions
Trustee mistakes after Pitt v Holt: a global divide
Solicitors Journal

Trustee mistakes after Pitt v Holt: a global divide

Divergent responses to Pitt v Holt have transformed remedial relief into a competitive feature of international trust jurisdictions
Feature7 Aug 2026
High Court ruling enhances SEND protections
Solicitors Journal

High Court ruling enhances SEND protections

The High Court's recent ruling clarifies legal obligations for schools concerning the exclusion of children with SEND
News7 Aug 2026
Diversity Summer Scheme inspires future lawyers
Solicitors Journal

Diversity Summer Scheme inspires future lawyers

More than 500 aspiring lawyers participated in the Government Legal Profession Diversity Summer Scheme, gaining invaluable insights through practical experiences and networking opportunities
News7 Aug 2026
MUF v Secretary of State for Defence: High Court quashes fourth ARAP refusal for Afghan judge
Solicitors Journal

MUF v Secretary of State for Defence: High Court quashes fourth ARAP refusal for Afghan judge

High Court quashes fourth refusal of Afghan judge's relocation application under ARAP scheme.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
Mohammed Sarwar v Bilal Sarwar: High Court dismisses unfair prejudice petition over hotel business split
Solicitors Journal

Mohammed Sarwar v Bilal Sarwar: High Court dismisses unfair prejudice petition over hotel business split

High Court rejects family's unfair prejudice claim after finding hotel business division agreement genuine.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
David Hill v HMRC: Upper Tribunal clarifies scope of reasonable excuse based on adviser reliance
Solicitors Journal

David Hill v HMRC: Upper Tribunal clarifies scope of reasonable excuse based on adviser reliance

Upper Tribunal partly allows appeal over penalties for non-compliance with HMRC information notices.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
Code Students v Nottingham City Council: High Court refuses judicial review over rival scheme approval
Solicitors Journal

Code Students v Nottingham City Council: High Court refuses judicial review over rival scheme approval

High Court refuses permission for judicial review of Nottingham student accommodation planning decision.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
KDY v Nicholas Langham: High Court strikes out 300-page claim against eleven defendants
Solicitors Journal

KDY v Nicholas Langham: High Court strikes out 300-page claim against eleven defendants

High Court strikes out sprawling multi-defendant claim brought by mother on behalf of disabled son.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
David Abbott v Ministry of Defence: High Court orders 60% costs in hearing loss litigation
Solicitors Journal

David Abbott v Ministry of Defence: High Court orders 60% costs in hearing loss litigation

High Court orders Ministry of Defence to pay 60% of costs in hearing loss litigation.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
SOCAR v Mubariz Mansimov: Commercial Court retains jurisdiction over Palmali asset-stripping claims
Solicitors Journal

SOCAR v Mubariz Mansimov: Commercial Court retains jurisdiction over Palmali asset-stripping claims

Commercial Court dismisses jurisdiction challenge to SOCAR's claims over alleged Palmali asset restructurings.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
York SD Limited v HMRC: Upper Tribunal grants partial permission to appeal in EIS solar panel case
Solicitors Journal

York SD Limited v HMRC: Upper Tribunal grants partial permission to appeal in EIS solar panel case

Upper Tribunal partly allows appeal permission over enterprise investment scheme relief in solar panel dispute.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
CDE v NHS North East London ICB: High Court refuses judicial review over disabled child's care plan
Solicitors Journal

CDE v NHS North East London ICB: High Court refuses judicial review over disabled child's care plan

Deputy High Court judge refuses permission for judicial review over care provision for life-limited teenager.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
Aerotron v Hermes Aviation: High Court grants stay of enforcement pending appeal
Solicitors Journal

Aerotron v Hermes Aviation: High Court grants stay of enforcement pending appeal

Master Fontaine stays enforcement of Maltese judgement debt pending Aerotron's appeal against recognition ruling.
Court Report7 Aug 2026
SJ Interview: Hannah Field
Solicitors Journal

SJ Interview: Hannah Field

Hannah Field, head of Shoosmiths’ London office and its Dispute Resolution & Litigation team in London, speaks to Solicitors Journal about the firm’s growth strategy,...
Interview28 Jul 2026
The judgement behind the answer
Solicitors Journal

The judgement behind the answer

Foreword7 Aug 2026